Karl's post comes at an opportune time when I as part of a task force trying to determine exactly this, across different types of elearning content. At this time we are stuck trying to demystify what is one hour of elearning content and the various levels/types of elearning content.

Would love to hear from you what you consider one hour of elearning, what are the different levels of elearning and how do you classify them.

Classifying different levels of elearning? This is a huge base - too huge for a comment, but worthy of a post. It’s got me thinking.

I left the following comment in reply to yours on Karl Kapp’s post.

In my estimates, the ‘1 hour of learning’ was based on what was considered an hour of learner study on the equivalent print-based resource that was in use at that time. The elearning material was designed to replace the equivalent print-based resource, and so an estimate could be made this way.

I may sound uncool and non-academic :-) but when ‘big’ clients come knocking on your door for eLearning ‘commodities’, they are unwilling to accept all the logic that we poor pedantic instructional designers use to justify and recommend an hour of eLearning. For most clients, what works is a back of the hand estimate:

Low Complexity course: I hour of eLearning = 1 hour of seat time for a learner (how ironic when you define seat time yet call it self-paced) = 50-55 screens (1 min per screen)Medium Complexity: 1 hour of eL = 1 hr of seat time = 35-40 screens (about 1.5 min per screen)High Complexity: 1 hour of eL = 1 hour of seat time = about 25 screens (about 2.5 mins per screen)While it works for all practical purposes, I have an inherent discomfort with the industry practice of defining seat time, defining complexity levels, as well as the time/screen assumptions. I use a different and more scientific approach at Kern which is based on our contextual inquiry findings. However this works only for consulting projects and not those where hours of eL have to be defined upfront.

Suggesting higher the interactivity, lesser the time it will take.———————————E-learning Developed without a Template - Text-only; limited interactivity; no animations - low 93, high 152E-learning Developed within a Template - Limited interactivity; no animations (using software such as Lectora, Captivate, ToolBook, TrainerSoft) - low 118 high 365

Suggesting template based development takes more time———————————-Also, as it mentions that 61% of people survey were SME + authors, this time doesnt give a true picture where most of the time is consumed interaction between SMEs and IDs—————————-

Has anybody noticed it?

RegardsKapil

Anonymous
said...

It's not my first time to pay a quick visit this web site, i am visiting this website dailly and get pleasant data from here everyday.